NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JING WU , et al.,

Petitioner s ,

v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent

. No. 23

- 65 Agency No s . A 205

- 190

- 073

A205

- 190

- 074 A205

- 190

- 075

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 1 4 , 2024 * * Pasadena , California
Before: TALLMAN, CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges, and LASNIK, ** * District Judge. Jing Wu, a native and citizen of China, appeals the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order affirm ing the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) order denying

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

*** The Honorable Robert S. Lasnik, United States District Judge for the Western District of Washington, sitting by designation. 

# FILED

FEB 20 2024
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2

Wu’s application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”) based on an adverse credibility
determination

. 1 Because the parties are familiar with the facts , we do not recount
them here. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 (a)(1) , and we deny the petition. The central question is whether s ubstantial evidence supports the IJ ’s adverse credibility determination. We review credibility determinations for substantial evidence, affirming the agency’s findings unless “any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary.” Iman v. Barr , 972 F.3d 1058, 1064 (9th Cir. 2020) (quotations omitted). Here, t he IJ found that although Wu ’s testimony was generally consistent, she had a “pattern of providing vague, unresponsive, and confusing testimony, followed by a sudden explanation,” which undermined her credibility

. The IJ ’s decision is supported by substantial evidence. Regarding Wu’s 2005 abortion certificate, Wu initially testified that the only document she ha d memorializing the abortion was produced in 2012

. A fter lengthy questioning and several vague answers, W u

1 Wu filed an affirmative application for asylum with the Department of Homeland Security, listing her husband, Hongyi Wang, and their daughter, Ziyang Wang, as derivative applicants

. Derivative applicants’ eligibly for relief is predicate d on the success of the lead applicant’s claims. See Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”) § 208(b)(3), 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(3)(A)

. Accordingly, this memorandum disposition address es only Wu’s individual claims for relief and protection as she is the lead applicant, but it appl ies to all applicants.3

explained that s he was given a document at the end of her procedure, but the director of the family planning clinic took it because she “didn’t have a purse to put it in.” Wu testified that she did not get a copy of the document, nor did she request one.
When asked about the abortion certificate that her mother obtained in 2012 , Wu initially testified that her mother asked for “ help from a lot of people” to obtain the
certificate. After being asked to clarify several times what she meant by “help,” Wu

sa id she d id not know how her mother obtained the certificate and that she never
asked , but later e xplained that her mother presented Wu’s national identification and obtained a copy of the abortion record. Wu never explained how her mother
obtained Wu’s national identification or how she obtained the record without Wu being present.
Wu also gave inconsistent testimony regarding her marriage dates. Wu does not dispute the inconsistency, but instead argues that the inconsistency may not support an adverse credibility determination , sta

. The B IA acknowledged , and we

agree, that the inconsistency alone is insufficient to undermine Wu’s credibility , but
when viewed in light of the totality of the circumstances, the testimony is not
credible

. See Alam v. Garland , 11 F.4th 1133, 113 5 (9th Cir. 2021) (allowing this Court to consider any inconsistency, regardless of whether it goes to the “heart of
the claim” ) (quotations omitted).4

There are several additional examples where Wu gave vague and inconsistent

answers
. Wu initially testified that she lost her medical records when she moved
and denied that her family in China could help her receive these records , ye t she was able to provide an abortion certificate from 2012. Wu also gave inconsistent testimony to the asylum officer, admittedly lied o n her visa application, and submitted inaccurate information on her asylum application. Considering the totality of the circumstances, substantial evidence supports the IJ ’s adverse credibility determination.
Wu also failed to corroborate her testimony. Jie Cui v. Holder , 712 F.3d 1332, 1336 (9th Cir. 2013) ( “If the trier of fact either does not believe the applicant or does not know what to believe, the applicant ’ s failure to corroborate testimony can be fatal to his asylum application.”) (quoting Sidhu v. I.N.S. , 220 F.3d 1085, 1090 (9th Cir. 2000) )

. I Js retain broad discretion to determine the authenticity of a document. Vatyan v. Mukasey , 508 F.3d 1179, 1185 (9th Cir. 2007)

. The IJ reasonably gave little weight to the 2012 abortion document because it was not contemporaneous and was produced under questionable circumstances

. Similarly, the letter from Wu’s
mother cannot corroborate the abortion because she was not present

. Regarding the sterilization notice, the IJ questioned the notice’s authenticity, particularly because
the notice listed the date o f birth of Wu’s second child

. See Vatyan , 508 F.3d at
1185 n.4 ( “‘ [A]n IJ need not accept all documents as authentic nor credit5

documentary submissions without careful scrutiny ’ so long as the rejection is

‘ premised on more than a guess or surmise. ’ ” ) (alteration in original) (quotation omitted). Wu failed to produce sufficient documentary evidence corroborating her
claim. Because Wu’s testimony was not credible, she failed to establish eligibility for asylum and withholding of removal. Pedro

– Mateo v. INS , 224 F.3d 1147, 1150 (9th Cir. 2000)

. The remaining objective evidence is insufficient to justify relief
under CAT. Yali Wang v. Sessions , 861 F.3d 1003, 1009 (9th Cir. 2017)

. Therefore, the record does not compel us to reverse the IJ’s credibility
determination , and i n turn, we find that substantial evidence supports the B IA ’s
denial of all three of Wu’s claims for relief.

PETITION DENIED.